Lyon County commissioners said in Thursday’s commission meeting they would like to make a decision in two weeks on the sales tax issue discussed during Wednesday’s city/county joint meeting.
During Wednesday’s joint meeting, Dan Slater, controller for Lyon County, said the Sales Tax Committee decided to recommend that Lyon County proceed to put the sales tax question on the August ballot. Lyon County commissioners on Thursday said they are leaning toward a one percent tax.
Slater said the money would be distributed as follows: The sales tax revenue first would be divided in half and then distributed to all the cities in the county by population. The second half would be used to lower property taxes in Lyon County.
“The whole idea of the sales tax is to lower the property tax,” Slater said Thursday
County Commissioner Bob Davis said in Thursday’s meeting he is ready to move ahead — now.
“I think the county has made their position very clear,” Davis said. “It’s good for the community ... if presented right it will be good for the community.”
County Commission Chairman Scott Briggs said he had spoken to an Emporia city commissioner Thursday morning and the desire of that commissioner was to give the task force one more opportunity to meet before the county passes a resolution to put the question on the August ballot.
Davis disagreed.
“Any time we let an issue like this go into repeated discussion you’re asking for opposition,” he said. “It’s our call and we’ve had several meetings and I think in the essence of time ... we’re not going to be meeting next week. It’s time to act.”
Commission Vice-Chairman Marshall Miller said a resolution has to be prepared before the commission can vote on it.
The discussion continued when County Counselor Marc Goodman jumped in. Goodman’s suggestion was to allow for public comment on the issue. Davis still disagreed, stating that special-interest groups should not be allowed to sway the county’s decision.
“You’re not elected to listen,” Davis said. “You’re elected to do.”
“I’m not suggesting you be swayed,” Goodman said. “I am suggesting that you identify the special-interest groups.”
Commissioners also discussed how big a tax to put on the ballot question. The consensus was 1 percent.
“Let me assure you of one thing,” Davis said. “Anything less than one percent is going to be a pittance to small towns and they will not support it ... If you let some opposition come in and talk us out of one percent you are going to lose the whole ball of wax. It’s time to stand up and be counted. ...”
Miller re-iterated that the money would lower the county’s mill levy for all the people of Lyon County, including Emporia.
“We built a jail with this kind of money and we built a courthouse with this kind of money,” he said.
In other matters:
F Commissioners accepted one of the two proposals from Emporia State University for artwork in the Lyon County Courthouse. Commissioners accepted the proposal that featured Kansas-centered works and a few other mediums. The students who worked on the accepted proposal were Ariel Johnson, Carolyn Szekely, Jason Stewart, and Kelly Herken. There will be about 24 pieces in the exhibit.
Comments
We allow registered users to post comments on this Web site. To learn more about our posting policies please read our User Poster Agreement Policy.
Posted by pizza (anonymous) on May 2, 2008 at 5:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I am confused. Just a year and a half ago the gazette and the chamber couldn't say enough about NO more taxes during the period prior to the election. Now the gazette is all excited about which new tax do you want etc. Pretty short memories it seems to me. If the new tax is such a good idea won't it still be a good idea in a few weeks. What is the rush to keep the "special interest groups" out of the discussion. And, Bob, I do believe you are elected to "listen" not just to "do". We seem to have a good deal of that disregarding the voters in politics today. Whoa there, what's the rush?
Posted by wirewatt (anonymous) on May 2, 2008 at 8:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I would gladly vote for a one percent sales tax, but they would have to put a limit on the mill levy. This would be the most fair tax that we could get, because everyone would be paying on it. The present mill levy is to high and should be rolled back according to the amount of money needed not what is wanted.. We should have another 20 to 30 million being added into the tax mix next year, and more coming in the following year. I do know that the utilities and upkeep on the court house will not doubt rise. I would like to see the county employee's receive a raise for cost of living.
Posted by momus (anonymous) on May 2, 2008 at 8:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I agree with a lot of what pizza is saying... We all need to determine potential impacts, both positive and negative, before we proceed with any tax measure.
As far as the Gazette is concerned, where is option four in the poll? The one that says, don't raise taxes? Is a tax increase a forgone conclusion? We've heard for years about how the demand for certain services would change dramatically if certain businesses weren't here (or nearly as large). Well, the population is changing dramatically, are the services provided changing as well? Can we see a decrease in demand that would encourage downsizing, and if so, could increased efficiency make up the differential expected within another tax hike?
Posted by under_score (anonymous) on May 6, 2008 at 3:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Right on momus. I vote for option 4. The city/county need to cut projects or whatever to meet the amount of money they are already bringing in. Not vice/versa. As I've always said. Anyone can run government if your answer to every problem is to raise taxes. We have to be more efficient to compete and if it takes downsizing the city and county staff then so be it. The remaining staff should get cost of living raises as well. Maybe it would be more incentive to treat people a little nicer down at the tags and taxes office if they had something to lose jobwise.
Posted by admireed (anonymous) on May 6, 2008 at 7:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)
http://www.ksrevenue.org/pdf/StateLocalS...
Posted by admireed (anonymous) on May 6, 2008 at 9:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I have not found a source that lists property tax levies for towns/counties in Kansas. I would be interested to see if these higher sales tax places have a correspondingly lower property tax levy. My suspicion ... no correlation!
Posted by momus (anonymous) on May 7, 2008 at 7:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)
A 1% sales tax hike puts us at or above Topeka. Not exactly a smart thing to do in an area loosing sales to Topeka. Plus, in times of economic hardship, the last thing that you want to do is put more pressure on individual disposable income. In addition, voters will be asked in another year to extend the industrial sales tax. And, we now have at least on city councilman that ran on a platform of no-new-taxes (Mr. Longbine) touting the virtues of new taxes? This is the perfect storm of bad timing, bad research (or no research), bad strategy and bad promises. I can see why supporters want to sneak this thing by before any critical thinking/organization by the general populace can occur.
Posted by netloafer (anonymous) on May 7, 2008 at 9:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)
An increase in the sales tax might seem more attractive on the surface than an increase in the mill levy, but a tax is a tax is a tax. Momus is absolutely right that an increase in sales tax would be particularly burdensome on consumers at a time when the economy is in a downturn. Our median incomes are among the lowest in the state of Kansas, our poverty rates are much higher than state and national averages. In terms of mill levy, if our levy were applied to an average valuation home in Boston, where my brother lives, his real estate taxes would increase from his current $3700 per year to about $7000 per year. The reason our tax burden is so high is in part because our median home is valued at about $70K. That means the commissions feel "obliged" to use high mill levies to get the income they feel they need to operate.
Our population is still in decline and there has been no movement whatsover to try to do the things necessary to increase median incomes or property values. When none of this happens the result is having to deal with county city government and USD253 continually running around with a hat in one hand and a big stick in the other. The other thing that is really galling is that government touts smaller increases in the mill levy than anticipated as victories for the people (see the budget disucssion from August 2007).
One of the things that seems counter-intuitive to government is that beginning to lower the tax burden over time would be far more beneficial to the city's well being than tax increases. The truth is,Laffer curves actually do work.
Posted by create (anonymous) on May 7, 2008 at 1 p.m. (Suggest removal)
You know, the sad thing about this is even if we all agree that raising the sales tax is not the right approach at this time, and we vote it down, they will waste no time at all by raising property taxes.
Posted by Kujiin (anonymous) on May 8, 2008 at 4:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"A 1% sales tax hike puts us at or above Topeka. Not exactly a smart thing to do in an area loosing sales to Topeka."
With gas at $3.50 a gallon you actually would drive to Topeka to avoid paying an additional 1% in sales tax increase? Right On. So you'll call the Topeka Fire Department when you need them. Make sure you tell them you spent your tax money there. I'll be spending my tax dollars in Emporia. So hopefully if need city services of any kind, they will still have someone to send.
Posted by netloafer (anonymous) on May 8, 2008 at 6:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)
It's actually easier to order on line and have FedEx or U.P.S. deliver the goods right to your door. And, it the goods will cost less as well. One of the problems with buying things locally, particularly big ticket items, is that the costs are much higher here than places like Topeka, Wichita, or Kansas City. It's almost as if there there is a surcharge added to some items here. I bought a Club Cadet mower in Wichita because the equivalent mower here was going to cost a hundred dollars more. The trip cost me $30,00 in gas and $6.00 in tolls. The sales tax was $4.00 higher in Wichita back then. The net to me was $60.00. Now, with the real possibility of a one percent increase in our sales tax even that local "advantage" will probably be wiped out.
I wouldn't mind shopping locally, but on many things I don't see the point. So, I'll either order on line and have it delivered or take the drive out of town on the big ticket items and bring them back in my pickup.
Posted by momus (anonymous) on May 8, 2008 at 7:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I do shop locally. I guess I'm willing to spend a little more on items when I know that the money will circulate through the local economy. In my mind, one of the easiest ways to improve the business climate in the community is to improve business profitability, which means I need to support local businesses if I ever expect them to offer the goods and services I want and need. I understand and respect the fact that some have a different view on this subject of where to shop, but I simply believe that businesses don't exist without customers. If customers don't support local businesses, then local businesses won't exist. If we have problems with price, selection or service within the local community it may be because of a lack of entrepreneurship, a lack of profitability within existing businesses, proximity to larger markets (virtual or otherwise) and unrealistic expectations of what a community our size can provide. I'm not saying that there aren't some bad apples out there (there are), but we can't expect the product price and selection to improve by magic (it will take community support).
But I digress... My comment on the 1% sales tax seems to have been misunderstood. To rephrase, if people are struggling with disposable income, and businesses are struggling to attract customers and both of those situations have an immediate and dire effect on the local economy: why would you want to apply more pressure to a combustible situation like that through a sales tax hike?
Posted by momus (anonymous) on May 8, 2008 at 11:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Kstrebuchet,
Didn't mean to come across as whining. No, I don't agree with every spending decision of the city/county, but I also understand that elected officials are human and make mistakes. My biggest problem with the decision making process on a local government level is the lack of strategic thinking, lack of anticipation concerning market position change within a given time frame and the lack of waterproofing (making better decisions through research and healthy debate). I think the rush to sales tax exemplifies my concerns. From a purely political standpoint, I already hear promises of sales tax money going to several different entities presupposing an increased inflow that may never materialize. The over promising of budget increases to multiple agencies in order to gain popular support for a tax hike is a very old and well tested political strategy that generally succeeds in benefiting no one.
Secondly, I believe that a healthy political system takes all different levels of involvement. Most people that know me would probably say I am still too young to run for political office, but does that mean that I can't interject my opinion in the decision making arena? We can't have a government that says "this is good for you, trust us" and then complain about apathy of constituents.
The complaining about services and taxes boils down to the fact that people have different priorities. You seem like a fairly logical person, and I like to think that I am too... But, we may prioritize services differently. We may have different levels of tax burden that we feel is appropriate for a city our size. It doesn't mean that either of us is wrong, it just means that we view the world differently. That's a good thing. And, as long as people want to move beyond complaining and actually do something to help fix problems, a passionate community is a major asset in my opinion.
Posted by wanderer (anonymous) on May 11, 2008 at 9:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)
It's kind of ironic. Last year, when the city was going through a budget crisis and having to either make big cuts or raise property taxes, a lot of people began saying we should do a sales tax instead when we got the chance as a low-impact way of raising money quickly. Now, when push comes to shove, the crowds are gathering against it.
I'm not a huge fan of sales taxes myself (even back then -- I think they hit the lower income levels too hard), but I find it interesting how quickly everybody's opinion changed when a sales tax moved from "future option" to "present reality."
Posted by momus (anonymous) on May 11, 2008 at 11:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)
But, that's the argument here... I don't believe that sales tax is "low impact". I understand that we have to raise revenue through taxes for services. However, sales tax is not (in my opinion) appropriate at this time for several reasons listed above. I think we have other revenue options.
Furthermore, I simply don't comprehend the perpetual growth model of government. Services should be proportional to the population. So, if the population shrinks, there should be less demand on some of our services, correct? We still don't understand the full impact the Tyson layoffs and other projects that didn't come to fruition will have on our economy and population. Until we get a grasp on those impacts and their effects on services, changes in our tax structure may lead to an inefficient use of funds. Let’s get back to basics of infrastructure, essential services and economic development. Then we can move forward. If, in a year, our local and national economy has stabilized and we know what we can expect (within reason) our demand on services will be, then lets move ahead with new tax assessments. But, this is not the time.
Posted by momus (anonymous) on May 12, 2008 at 8:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)
As for the other revenue options, first we need to utilize grant opportunities for infrastructure and development improvements that are currently solely funded through local taxes. Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) can not only be used for certain infrastructure, but federal guidelines allow cities to guarantee private investment loans at a level of 125% of the grant allocation for certain redevelopment projects. There are also underutilized non-competing grants for equipment which benefit fire and police. The vast majority of us pay federal taxes and I have no problem pulling that money into Emporia departments.
Secondly, changing our assessment methodology to include "highest and best use" is another potential source of revenue. I know I've said this before, but I don't understand why certain property owners in certain areas are rewarded for letting their properties disintegrate with lower property taxes. Those of us that maintain property watch as our properties maintain or increase in valuation. Zones of highest and best use may create redevelopment, more tax revenue and decrease blight while redistributing the tax burden more evenly.
Third, we have more people from our area that are leaving Emporia to shop than are coming in. So, although some people from out of town would support our community through sales tax, we still have a sales gap of around $11.5 million. That means that the sales tax would not be supported fully by its own citizens that benefit the most from the tax. Thus, a smaller percentage of Emporians would be responsible for a larger percentage of the tax base; does that sound fair?
Finally, and I hope I am misunderstanding you here... Do you mean to say that we should increase the size and scope of government irregardless to the size of our population? That if we lost "1,000 residents" their would be no effect on the demand for services? I agree that we need to maintain infrastructure (see infrastructure, essential services and economic development above), but to say that our government must continuously grow because the population in the past has grown, when we may face the loss of what is conservatively estimated at 4% of our population seems a little strange to me. I would suggest that we increase taxes when demand on services increase. Two different points of view, but the fact is neither of us knows what will happen in a potentially volatile next 12 months. I think we will probably have a better handle on the population and demand for services in September after the new school year starts. As such, we might want to wait a year to determine if we need to raise taxes on the public to meet service demands at a city/county level. A year would also give our local, state and national economy more time to recover from the dreaded "R" word which no one wants to utter. Give it a year, and if the demand, population and economic stability are still there, I will support your tax increase.
Post a comment
We allow registered users to post comments on this Web site. Our goal with this feature is to encourage thoughtful discussions about the news stories. Using the comment feature to make random attacks on people is not acceptable. Emporiagazette.com neither endorses nor guarantees the accuracy of any user contribution. Responsibility for what is posted or contributed to this site is the sole responsibility of each user. To learn more about our posting policies please read our User Poster Agreement Policy.
(Requires free registration.)